Hermes Plant

EmailGuard — validate a whole contact list

emailguard_validate_batch

Idempotent

Validate up to 20 emails in one tool call — one deterministic verdict per record (validity, deliverability score, disposable/role/free classification, typo suggestion, canonical normalization). Pass your free apiKey (250 records/mo, no wallet — https://hermesplant.com/pricing) and each record serves from quota. Results preserve input order; the batch stops at the first 402 (quota exhausted) and marks the rest skipped so you can upgrade and resume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payer`	No	Optional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
`apiKey`	No	Free-tier / plan API key (hp_free_… or a pass key). Forwarded as X-API-Key so paid tools serve from your monthly quota with NO x402 wallet. Get a free key (250 calls/mo) at https://hermesplant.com/pricing.
`channel`	No	Discovery channel or source tag
`records`	Yes	Contact records to validate — one storefront call per record (max 20 per tool call)
`campaign`	No	Campaign tag for downstream telemetry
`xPayment`	No	Raw X-PAYMENT proof from an x402-compatible wallet/client
`actorType`	No	Caller type for analytics: agent, human, synthetic, system, or unknown
`synthetic`	No	Mark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
`paymentSignature`	No	x402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
`paymentIdentifier`	No	Optional x402 payment identifier for idempotency/retry correlation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response
`httpStatus`	Yes	Upstream HTTP status code
`paymentRequired`	No	True when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: quota consumption per record, deterministic verdicts, preservation of input order, and the partial-failure behavior where the batch stops at a 402 and marks remaining records as skipped. This is substantial and consistent with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by key operational details. Every phrase earns its place—no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a rich output schema (not shown but indicated), annotations, and a thorough input schema. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (quota, ordering, failure handling, deterministic results) and does not need to explain return values given the output schema. It is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions, including apiKey, records, and payment-related fields. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states, such as highlighting the 'free apiKey' and quota link, but this is mostly redundant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Validate up to 20 emails in one tool call' and lists specific outputs (validity, deliverability score, disposable/role/free classification, typo suggestion, canonical normalization). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling emailguard_validate, which likely handles a single email.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (batch validation of up to 20 emails) and mentions prerequisites like the free apiKey and quota. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative, but the title and 'whole contact list' strongly imply batch use, making the context sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hermes Plant tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. Financial tools (bond, cashflow, deal, options, portfolio, wallet, waterfall) each target a specific analysis type, email tools are batch vs single, and e-commerce tools are separate. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a noun_verb pattern (e.g., bond_analyze, emailguard_validate), but there is some inconsistency: some use verb_noun (get_product, list_products) and brand names like cashflowlens_analyze break the pattern slightly. Overall, it is still readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools spanning finance, email, security, and e-commerce, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a pay-per-use server offering diverse deterministic analytics. Each tool serves a distinct function, and the number is not overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major financial analysis types, email validation, and basic e-commerce operations. Minor gaps (e.g., no tool for portfolio rebalancing or more advanced email features) exist, but the core advertised services are well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?